Guangzhou lawyer Zhang Jing answered: It is generally difficult to look at the facts and evidence of the case. The ownership of the property is subject to the registration, and if the property registration is overturned, the court will not support it unless there is sufficient evidence. If the relationship between the parents and the son is really borrowed to buy the house, it is necessary to have an agreement when buying the house. Otherwise, just because the son and daughter-in-law divorced, it would be unreasonable to say that it was a borrowed name to buy a house. In the case of the case below, the court held that the parents only contributed a part of the contribution, not the entire payment. Moreover, the son voluntarily transferred the house to his daughter-in-law's name, indicating that the son did not admit that it was a borrowed name to buy a house. The judgment dismissed the son's parents' claim for confirmation of ownership of the house.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether House 1904 belonged to the common family property of Chen's father, Liu's mother, Chen'er and Xia's daughter-in-law, and analyzed this as follows: 1. Article 9 of the Property Law stipulates that the creation, alteration, transfer and extinction of real estate rights shall become effective upon registration in accordance with law;Without registration, it shall not take effect, unless otherwise provided by law. In this case, Chen Er and a group signed a contract to purchase 1,904 houses on September 28, 2013, and the property rights of the house were registered in Chen Er's name on June 16, 2015. Subsequently, as an agreement between the husband and wife to dissolve the property, the property right of House 1904 was changed from Chen Er to the name of Xia Daughter-in-law on the grounds of "property separation" on March 15, 2019, and according to the aforementioned provisions, Xia Daughter-in-law is the legal property owner of House 1904. 2. Chen's father and Liu's mother proposed that the 1904 house was actually purchased by them, and that the property rights were registered in Chen'er's name only because of the purchase restriction policy, and that Chen'er was purchased under the name of Chen'er, but they failed to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate it, so this court did not accept it. 2.The so-called "Chen Er's name to buy a house" lacks factual basis. Although Chen Er now agrees with the "notional purchase" advocated by Chen's father and Liu's mother, the two parties have special interests in parents and children, and their statements lack credibility, and Chen Er's change of House 1904 to the name of Xia's daughter-in-law on March 15, 2019 on the grounds of property separation, which shows that Chen Er herself did not recognize Chen's father and Liu's mother as the real property owners of House 1904 at that time, that is, denied the theory of "nominal purchase". 3.The actual use of room 1904 has no impact on the determination of its ownership. After Chen'er purchased the 1904 house, Chen's father and Liu's mother did live in and use the house, but this was obviously not enough to prove that the house belonged to Chen's father and Liu's mother. The fact that parents live in houses owned by their children is a common occurrence in society and does not mean that the house should be owned by the parents. Based on the above analysis, based on the doctrine of the validity of real estate registration, this court confirmed that Xia's daughter-in-law was the legal property owner of House 1904, and the litigation claims of Chen's father and Liu's mother were not established, and this court did not support them.